[linux-audio-user] (OSS vs. RME) vs. (OSS + RME) [slightly OT]

[Dave Robillard]

On Thu, 2004-16-12 at 22:54 -0600, vord wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:48:59 -0500, Dave Robillard
> <drobilla at connect.carleton.ca> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-16-12 at 20:45 -0600, vord wrote:
> > > Everyone's happy -- RME discloses nothing and therefore risks nothing,
> > > *nix gets compatibility and therefore a potentially larger user base,
> > > which leads to potentially larger development teams, communities,
> > > which leads to ... [imagination required beyond this point].
> > 
> > No, Linux on approved x86 boxes with the single "supported" version of
> > the Linux kernel gets compatibility.  Maybe.  For a little while anyway,
> > until RME decides it doesn't care about your $2000 sound card anymore so
> > prevent you from using it with any remotely recent system.
> > 
> > "Spread cheer and free software throughout the land" indeed.
> 
> see my reply to thewade. this is so wrong. binaries from this group
> can be provided for any arch just like they are with any other set of
> drivers. RME, or whoever the manufacturer is, isnt even the one
> developing the driver, nor maintaning it. see?

Yeah.  That'll happen.  And I'm sure this little tiny sect of privileged
NDA people will keep mantaining the driver until the end of time too,
and will immediately fix or implement anything anyone wants.

*rolls eyes*

Besides, what you're suggesting basically amounts to developing
proprietary software for RME for free.  Who the heck is going to do
that?  I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that most developers expect to
actually get payed to work for a company.  And if you're developing a
proprietary driver, you are most certainly working for a company (not
the community).  Are _YOU_ going to be the guy to work for RME for free,
or are you just helpfully volunteering other people's time and effort?

-DR-